Just What do People Want?

Knock Knock

Knock Knock

Hello, does anybody that posts here read the very newsworthy Colonial Newsletter that is posted here every month like clock work here at ASciFi.com by Starship Trooper?

How about this news: Universal has OK’d new Battlestar XBOX/PS2 Game?

Sure this is a newsletter for fans of TOS, but the latest A lot of questions about the December 7th Battlestar Galactica 2003 TV mini are answered. Ronald D. Moore online interviews are linked.

Check out the home of Colonial Newsletter has Ronald D. Moore’s script of Battlestar Galactica 2003 that was posted on The Scifi Channel’s Battlestar Galactica Forum?

TOS news is listed in detail, also. Does anybody know that Glen Larson creator of Battlestar Galactica along with X-Men 1, 2 & 3, producer Tom DeSanto as well as Apollo of TOS, star Richard Hatch, have discussed a Battlestar Galactica movie based on TOS?

Check out the online Colonial Newsletter;s home @ http://www.battlestargalacticaclub.com
 
Yep I read it, by the way I received it in my email.

Krystal :p
 
Good man

Ya shold have caught that Shanks as Apollo, hell I was way to late myself.

Nice to see you,
dvo
 
As a scifi hitchiker looking for my next cause to support about I have a few questions. What was going on in the Apothis forum? What is TOS? How far are people willing to go to display their disgruntlement over this whole situation with the miniseries?
 
TOS- Generally accepted abreviation for Star Trek The Original Series (Kirk, Spock & Co.)
 
TOS=The Original Series

TOS- Generally accepted abreviation for 'The Original Series'.
Like Battlestar Galactica, TOS, The Original Series (Aired on ABC in '78 & '79, Richard Hatch as Apollo, Dirk Benedict as Starbuck.)
 
,
Originally posted by Dave

It seems that if you are going to take something and change it THAT much, then you should no longer call it the same thing. Otherwise you are cashing in on the name undeservedly.
Click to expand...

This is at the heart of the matter. We have learned some things that we didn't know when we were trying to change SciFi and Universal's minds about the mini they're making.

This is how I understand it. Universal owns the rights to the name Battlestar Galactica. They apparently have to make something for TV with that name within a certain time frame. They don't own the characters so anything they make has to be different, except in name.

When Universal has made the mini, then they can make a big screen movie using their new characters, as well as the name Battlestar Galactica. They are making a totally new show for the simple reason that legally they had to do so. No other way they could go. They knew this; we were the ones in the dark.

Larson owns the movie rights and the characters, but not the name Battlestar Galactica. He needs Universal's permission to make a big screen movie, however. He is now thinking in that direction which is why we are working on a mail-in campaign.

There was nothing we could have said or done that would have induced Universal to make the continuation with the original cast as we were asking. Legally they cannot do it. Only Larson can do what we have been working toward for years.

So we have two different shows. I don't see a need for further debate concerning one over the other. I can't see the point. But that's my POV, everyone else is welcome to theirs.
 
Well that does throw rather more light on the subject.

A pity they couldn't all sit down and come to an agreement without dragging in the lawyers. It would have saved a lot of silliness in favour of something more in the line of enthusiastic encouragement.

But that I suppose is big business now :(
 
For those of you who like to unwind convoluted ideas, here's a cross-post from repcisg, who frequents the CF board. He's usually more up-to-date on the legal questions than the rest of us. I think you'll agree that repcisg is quite thorough and a joy to read.....ojai22

================================================
    September 13th, 2003 19:47 PM

This is a repost of a reply I made some time back. The Sonny Bono law is being dismantled, piece by piece. Some of the worst parts have already been removed and we can expect the dismantling to continue. But even with that said the assessment I made below still holds. The design of the mini was and is no accident.

In essence if it is in TOS and not in the Mini - Glen owns it.

Repost -----

I now have had a fair amount of time to mull over the current information on the new production. Up front I would like to say what I am about to say is my personal opinion based on my own analysis of the data at hand. I do have a lawyer in the family and I am on friendly terms with several others. I have during my career worked on a number of projects involving the reverse engineering of various products.

That said, I will remind all that in October 1998 the Copyright Laws were changed (Sonny Bono Law) giving the original producers and actors a much greater say in how their work is used and was retroactive to Jan 1, 1978. Further under the new law any new work using material drawn from or copied from another’s work cannot be sold or made public without the permission of the original creator. We also have in the public domain ample evidence that Universal and Glen Larson (the copyright holder of the original films) have been in conflict over the ownership and control of the original story. This has been underscored by an actual lawsuit filed by Mr. Larson against Universal in 1999, Mr. Larson reportedly won, his creative rights confirmed.

For Universal to produce a new mini or series without Glen Larson’s involvement must involve extensive redesign of the story. Take for example Starbuck, the character is quite unique, any male actor trying to reprise Starbuck cannot help but run afoul of the copyright held by Larson, I.E. a copied or derived work. The same issue holds true for Adama and Apollo. Both are unique to the show and all three must be present. How then do you provide for the characters and yet not replicate the originals.

For Adama, his special place is as the leader, but others could also lead. By assigning the leadership role to a female character, Adama can remain as a male but is now in a roll originally occupied by the character Colonel Tigh, who, in turn is demoted. Thus in reality, Adama is split into two pieces one male and one female. This also applies to Starbuck, he is too unique for any male to play the role but as a female the gender change creates an entirely different foundation and thus avoids any duplication of the original.

The process of switching genders can only go so far, for Apollo a gender change would leave too many females in the central cast, he must remain male. So for him a major change in personality is called for, a complete redesign, which can now be done with the Adama character in a less central roll.

In the process of reverse engineering you develop rules from your analysis to apply to the object you are studying. In this effort five rules have evolved which seem to apply extremely well.

1) If the element is clearly derived from A Glen Larson source – it cannot be used.

2) If the original source of the element cannot be determined – it cannot be used.

3) If the original source of the element can be documented as originating from a Universal source – it can be used.

4) If the original source of the element can be documented as coming from several external sources and not used by Glen Larson in any of his productions – it can be used.

5) If the element is entirely new – it can be used.

The gender change issue for Adama and Starbuck allows rule five (5) to be applied while avoiding rules one and two. By severely altering Apollo’s personality rule five can be applied while again avoiding rules one (1) and two (2).

The female Cylon is clearly covered by rule number four (4) and the redesigned Baltar is now under rule five (5), avoiding rules one (1) and two (2).

The new camera approach is a rule four while the new civilian ships and new Galactica fall under rule five.

The use of Kobol as the home world shows the original story was based on Kobol and sourced from a Universal employee or was purchased outright, rule three (3). The colony worlds have been totally excluded, indicating they were added by Mr. Larson, and fall under rules one (1) and two (2).

In essence the “New Galactica†is just that, a new show. The new copyright laws were designed and intended to prevent the creation of continuations of existing films and series without the consent of the original creators.

For me this new work represents a different reality than the one I have hoped for, but again it was the intent of the law to force the creation of a new reality rather than allow for an expansion of the old.
=====================================
 
That above post in American

Originally posted by ray gower Well that does throw rather more light on the subject.
A pity they couldn't all sit down and come to an agreement without dragging in the lawyers. It would have saved a lot of silliness in favour of something more in the line of enthusiastic encouragement.
But that I suppose is big business now :(
Click to expand...

The Sonny Bono Law.
Ray I'm sure you have heard of it. When Richard Hatch came out with his Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming, retired actors dusted of resumes.

Glen Larson and Universal had a problem, who owned BG? Some Soloman gave Universal the TV rights of Battlestar Galactica. If you are familiar with the series Battlestar Pegasus is owned by Larson, I think. Or Larson could have the Galactica Movie?

Brian Singer & Tom DeSanto were doing BG for Fox & Scifi, it was dropped by Fox.

DeSanto had sets built in Vancover for Scifi, he was canned for the now to be shown in Dec. 7th. Ron Moore wrote it and is a producer.

Ray note this was before X-Men took off. Thinking back Universal should have gone with Singer & DeSanto. Hindsight being 20/20.
 
Re: The Sonny Bono Law

Originally posted by dvo47p

for the now to be shown in Dec. 7th.
Click to expand...

I believe the date has been changed from Sunday, December 7th to Monday, December 8th.
 
Personally I suspect there is mileage in both sets of ideas, combining them would achieve something extremely good that would feel new and different, whilst still keeping the continuity older fans want. Still by the time the various sets of lawyers are paid off nobody would make money out of the colaboration.

As for the Sony/Bono Law, it is an American thing and like a lot of legislation it is specifically designed to thwart common sense whilst lining expensive pockets
 
No New Galactica Series For Now

No New Galactica Series For Now

Sci-Fi not ready to commit to series order just yet.

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/448/448369p1.html?fromint=1

December 23, 2003 - The success of Sci-Fi Channel's recent Battlestar Galactica re-imagining / re-make must have taken a number of people by surprise. Despite critical and fan lambasting, the mini drew impressive numbers for the cable channel, chalking up some of the best ratings in the network's history, so it seemed inevitable that a series order would be announced soon.

Earlier this week a number of web sites announced that just such an order had been inked. Not so, according to a spokesperson for the Sci-Fi Channel. While it still seems likely that there will be some action on the Galactica front, no orders for either a series or a sequel to the mini-series have come from Sci-Fi Channel. No decisions or orders for new episodes will happen until after the first of the year, so cool your jets, little Colonial Warriors.


Sci-Fi not ready to commit to series order just yet.

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/448/448369p1.html?fromint=1

December 23, 2003 - The success of Sci-Fi Channel's recent Battlestar Galactica re-imagining / re-make must have taken a number of people by surprise. Despite critical and fan lambasting, the mini drew impressive numbers for the cable channel, chalking up some of the best ratings in the network's history, so it seemed inevitable that a series order would be announced soon.

Earlier this week a number of web sites announced that just such an order had been inked. Not so, according to a spokesperson for the Sci-Fi Channel. While it still seems likely that there will be some action on the Galactica front, no orders for either a series or a sequel to the mini-series have come from Sci-Fi Channel. No decisions or orders for new episodes will happen until after the first of the year, so cool your jets, little Colonial Warriors.
 
Originally posted by ray gower

As for the Sony/Bono Law, it is an American thing and like a lot of legislation it is specifically designed to thwart common sense whilst lining expensive pockets
Click to expand...

Ray, I think the Sonny Bono Law was meant to do the opposite - protect the creators and the material they created from the big studios that wanted to claim everything as their own. In this case it protected Larson from Universal. Somewhat.
 
As I was a little sketchy on the Sonny Bonno Law I looked it up. I originally thought it was the one between Sony and its artists (D'Bon?), who wanted the right to take their abilities elsewhere (which I think the artists lost).

Effectively it increases the length of copywrite on original works, meaning you can claim copyright for a full 70 years after you pass away. I'm sue you will find a way of spending the proceeds?

As it appears to have been funded by the Disney Corp (hardly a 'Little Guy') and other studios in an attempt to protect Mickey Mouse and co. it has been rather helpful to them as well, giving them 120 years. So it is something of a 2 edged sword.

Needless to say it has caused some controvosey, having been taken by the Digital Rights crowd as something of an opening shot for the Digital Rights Law with them complaining it stiffles development, a sop to big corporations and is un-constitutional etc. (Apparently there is some statute that says Congress shouldn't change laws for the fun of it, which I always thought was what a government did in preference to something useful or good).

As there is controvosey and lawyers involved, I think my comment still stands. And as this is America, the chap with the deepest pocket wins, but only after the lawyers have emptied both sets?

There is a prase of the argument here: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html
And the laws changes are here: http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/legmats/S505-final.html
 
Originally posted by ray gower As I was a little sketchy on the Sonny Bonno Law I looked it up. I originally thought it was the one between Sony and its artists (D'Bon?), who wanted the right to take their abilities elsewhere (which I think the artists lost).[/url]
Click to expand...

This SONNY BONO as in SONNY & CHER, Ray

Former Congressman Sonny Bono was in the hip pocket of all of ‘em, The Walt Disney Company is just the tip of a very big and powerful political entity called HOLLYWOOD, Ray.

Sonny Bono was a Congressman nobody took very seriously. A Republican from HOLLYWOOD, get real. He promised this new sort of law nobody paid any attention to except entity known as HOLLYWOOD!

Think on this Al Gore lost his ’84 bid for Democratic Party Presidential Candidate in no small part, to his support of his wife Tipper’s milquetoast rating effort on Rap, Hard Rock & Video Games, then she went after MOVIES, Al was f*cked & didn’t realize it till he passed the hat in HOLLYWOOD, zip, nada and next to nothing. Jesse Jackson got more money from HOLLYWOOD.

Before Trial Lawyer’s became The Democrat’s Piggy Bank, HOLLYWOOD was Dem. nominee MICHAEL DUKAKIS’ biggest one source in his campaign against Bush I. Indeed Trade Unions are still in decline, but not HOLLYWOOD!


Ray no other Country on this planet Earth has any other business have such a convoluted Accounting Practice; they make millions on movies that lose money.

Here is a really odd case in point, ’94 Academy Award Winner “Forrest Gump†by Winston Groom the author of the book did what any other person would do take a cut of the NET. Ah ha not in LALA LAND aka HOLLYWOOD, Tom Hanks got $20 million dollars and even more from his 2% cut of the GROSS. Indeed Hanks gets a cut of every bit of Gump, re-re-re-run as well as cut of DVD & VHS sales. Winston Groom the author of “Forrest Gump†has not yet received one penny of money via the NET income of his deal with the movie, “Forrest Gumpâ€

Ray the Estate of the might be DEAD guy Elvis Presley received more money from movie “Forrest Gump†than the still with us Winston Groom he only wrote the novel “Forrest Gumpâ€, go figure?

In a nutshell Ray:
Sonny Bono Term Extension Act Extends Copyright Terms

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, signed into law on October 27, 1998, amends the copyright laws by extending the duration of copyright protection. In general, copyright terms were extended for an additional 20 years.

For works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection will endure for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. In the case of a joint work, the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For anonymous and pseudonymous works and works made for hire, the term will be 95 years from the year of first publication or 120 years from the year of creation, whichever expires first;

For works created but not published or registered before January 1, 1978, the term endures for life of the author plus 70 years, but in no case will expire earlier than December 31, 2002. If the work is published before December 31, 2002, the term will not expire before December 31, 2047;

For pre-1978 works still in their original or renewal term of copyright, the total term is extended to 95 years from the date that copyright was originally secured.

There are additional provisions regarding sound recordings made before February 15, 1972, termination of grants and licenses, presumption of an author’s death, and reproduction by libraries and archives. For further information about these provisions, call the United States Copyright Office's Public Information Office, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., eastern time, except federal holidays, at 202-707-3000. You may view this legislation at the Copyright Office Website.

The Act does not restore copyright protection to any works that are in the public domain.
 
Ray no other Country on this planet Earth has any other business have such a convoluted Accounting Practice; they make millions on movies that lose money.
Click to expand...
Don't you believe it.

The Channel Tunnel is in so much hock it could solve the US national debt and have enough change for Japan's. Yet apparently it makes money?

Whilst France and Germany have had to fiddle the Euro books to the tune of 1500,million Euro's to civer their financial woes.

At least Hollywood is only into it to a few million;)

Accountancy itself is not mathematics. There are physical laws that say 2+2=4. Those laws say nothing about adding VAT and subtracting corporation tax.
 
Originally posted by ray gower Don't you believe it.
Whilst France and Germany have had to fiddle the Euro books to the tune of 1500,million Euro's to civer their financial woes.
At least Hollywood is only into it to a few million;)
Click to expand...

Hollywood does it in the low Billion as in one or two, Ray I was in the U. S. Navy for 21 years, I know what a drunken sailor can do. Politicos put us to shame.

Btw: Keep the Pound, the Queen or the Euro, follow Denmark?

Does Ireland still has Irish currencey?

What out give up your money & the Frogs & Jerries shall have you chaps driving on the RIGHT side of the road!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top